Tag Archives: war

Week 12- Cercas’s “Soldiers of Salamis

Posted on by under blog, Cercas

This week’s novel, Soldiers of Salamis written by Javier Cercas definitely felt like such a long read. Although, I was extremely thankful that I had a physical copy for this long novel because reading on a computer screen would definitely strain my eyes, and make the reading process longer. I found that it was interesting that this novel was divided into three parts instead of the usual chapters we often see. This novel, Soldiers of Salamis, also takes place during the Spanish Civil War, similar to some of the novels we had read. 

In part one of the novel named Forest Friends, Javier Cercas is the narrator who was struggling in making his dream of becoming a writer a reality, as he claims his career “never actually got started, so it would have been difficult to give it up” (13). Which was quite sad to read but also realistic, as people grow older, there eventually comes a time when they start to distinguish between their dreams, and what they are actually capable of. Javier returns to being a newspaper writer after five years where he had suffered “economic, physical, and metaphysical anguish… and a dreadful depression” (13). His father also passed away and then he was divorced by his wife. Even when he returns to his previous job, he’s treated as a traitor for leaving to write novels. However, he gets the opportunity to be able to interview Rafael Sanchez Ferlosio, the son of Rafael Sanchez Mazas, who told him “the story of his father facing the firing squad” (15-16). Mazas escaped the execution and was hiding in a forest when one of the soldiers spotted him, looked him right in the eye but yelled out, “There’s nobody over here!” (24) and essentially saved Mazas’s life with his lie. I found that act extremely interesting and also powerful, that the supposed enemy lied to spare his life. Eventually, Javier suspects that the soldier who spared Mazas’s life was Antonio Miralles. When Javier questioned him, “It was you, wasn’t it?” (240), there was a hesitation, and Miralles simply answered, “No” (240) with a wide smile, which feels like a lie. But if he was the soldier, I wonder why Miralles didn’t answer honestly. Was he hoping that lying would increase the chance that Javier would return to question him again? Or did he not want to be seen as a traitor, as he lied to his comrades to let Mazas escape. I find it interesting, and I wish we could’ve had a point of view from Miralles in that interaction to answer honestly, in his mind, if he was the soldier (which it seems like it): why he lied to Javier, and why he lied to save Mazas.

A question I have for my classmates is: in part one, do you agree with Javier’s colleagues that his choice of leaving a newspaper writing job to write novels is an act of betrayal? 

Week 10- Fuentes “The Old Gringo”

Posted on by under blog, fuentes

For this week, I have chosen to read “The Old Gringo” written by Carlos Fuentes, which from the book cover I thought this novel would be mainly focused on the Mexican revolution. However, there seemed to be so much more themes in this story. 

One of them was an unexpected love triangle of some sort between Harriet Winslow, Arroyo, and the old gringo, who is later revealed to be Ambrose Bierce, an American author who went to Mexico with a desire to die in the Mexican revolution. The old gringo seemed to have developed romantic feelings towards Harriet, who is an American woman that traveled to Mexico to teach children, and his feelings seem more genuine compared to Arroyo. Although personally, I find it quite odd and uncomfortable, as in the novel, it also seems to imply that the old gringo and Harriet have a father-daughter dynamic. As when he was killed, she said that he was her father and she wanted to “[bury] him in Arlington Cemetery beside her mother” (179). She also called the old gringo, “papa” (182) to his corpse. I’m not exactly sure how the author would want the readers to think of this pair, but I think it seems that both the old gringo and Harriet’s love for each other are one-sided in a way. As the old gringo has a romantic love for Harriet, while she has more of a parental love (implied) towards the old gringo. While Arroyo mainly targeted Harriet because he wanted to hurt the old gringo for betraying him. He threatens her that he will murder the old gringo if she doesn’t have a sexual relationship with him (which is very disturbing). Harriet wanted to protect the old gringo which began their side of the “love” triangle. 

Also, the lectures mention how repetition is a common theme in this novel, as the story begins and ends with the same line, “Now she sits alone and remembers” (3 and 199). I find stories that start and end with the same line quite interesting as it symbolizes coming full circle. Towards the end of the novel, Colonel Frutos Garcia tells Harriet that they respect her “because [she is] the one who will remember it all” (183), and I found that line extremely powerful and tragic. As both the old gringo and Arroyo are dead, their “love” triangle story, the memories between them, only exists because Harriet is the only one alive. The memories from the old gringo and Arroyo all cease to exist when they have passed, Harriet is the unfortunate one that will remember everything.

She is the only one left.

A question I have for my classmates is do you think Harriet viewed the old gringo as a father figure or as a love interest?

Week 7- Rodoreda’s “The Time of the Doves”

Posted on by under blog, rodoreda

This is the first novel that I have a physical copy of and the feeling of holding a book and flipping through the pages was so different compared to scrolling through the pages on a computer, so I was looking forward to reading this novel. This week I chose to read The Time of the Doves. This novel takes place during the Spanish Civil War and it shows how the main character, Natalia, had to struggle throughout this challenging time. 

“I had two mouths to feed and nothing to put in them.” (134) was such a heartbreaking line to read, it must be one of every parent’s worst nightmares, to not be able to provide for their children. Along with Natalia having to place her son into a camp “for refugee children” (139) so he wouldn’t starve despite her own desire of wishing she didn’t have to leave him. But her desire for Antoni to have his basic needs fulfilled was stronger. Even when he was begging her “not to leave him” (136), she “had to harden [her] heart and push him away” (136) for his own sake. It must have been difficult for Natalia to not give in to her son who was crying and begging to stay with her, but she had to be the level-headed person. Her son was still a child, young, and naive, unaware of the necessary but difficult decisions that must be made for the sake of his health. However, Natalia who is an adult, a mother, doesn’t get the choice to be ignorant. She must be the one to not be blinded by her or his emotions, and make the logical decision. I can’t imagine how that must feel, especially when she looked back at him and Antoni had “stopped crying… his face was like an old man’s” (137). It was like within these few minutes, where Natalia had to run out with her daughter, Antoni suddenly stopped being a child. It was almost like he had grown within those few minutes, and he’s no longer young and naive anymore, as he came out of the camp as a “different boy” (139). 

I was extremely shocked when one night when Natalia was lying with Antoni and Rita, she “decided to kill them” (145) and then herself due to being in poverty after her husband, Quimet had passed away in the war. Especially with her belief that “no one loved them” (146), which is once again, another heartbreaking line. However, thankfully a grocer, who ironically had the same name as her son, had saved her and her children by giving her a job and was also a man she ended up marrying. Eventually Natalia “returned to life… [her] children stopped looking like skeletons” (158).

A question I have for my classmates is, were you surprised when Natalia had a plan to kill her own children and herself? Did you think her plan was too extreme or did it make sense due to her challenging situation? What would you have chosen to do?

Week 5- Laforet’s “Nada”

Posted on by under blog, Laforet, Nada

“Nada” is currently my favorite novel so far. The novel takes place after the Spanish Civil War and the narrator is an orphan named Andrea, who was ecstatic to be able to study literature in Barcelona to the point she carried her luggage by herself as she had enough strength due to “[her] youth and eager anticipation” (3). Not even the fact that “nobody was waiting for [her]” (3) dimmed her excitement. However, the minute she arrives at her relative’s house, her excitement seems to be replaced with horror that “it all seemed like a nightmare” (5).

The novel seems to have a sense of nostalgia, as the way the grandmother talks about Juan and Roman who were “angels” (31). Especially when she mentions “back then, my child, Roman was a good man” (32), as if she doesn’t truly want to admit that Roman has changed and has become a terrible man. It seemed like she still wants to believe that there’s still some good in Roman, that he’s still the angel she loved when he was a child. Gloria also agrees with the grandmother and mentions that he used to comfort her when she was afraid. However, she also mentions that “Roman’s very nice when he wants to be, but at heart he’s bad.” (36), which was a line I found memorable, as it implies that one can never truly know another individual.

Ena’s situation surprised me the most, where she had a boyfriend that she loves, as she claims, “[she] couldn’t bear it if [her] life were separate from his” (218) but she broke up with him to be involved with Roman. However, it was later revealed Ena was with Roman for the purpose of getting revenge for her mother. As Ena was aware of the love her mother had for Roman, “nobody loved Roman the way [her mother] did” (193) but was mistreated by him. Juan’s grief for his brother’s death also surprised me, as it seemed their relationship became complex as both brothers loved Gloria. Earlier in the novel, Roman mentioned that “Juan belonged to him” (232), and I didn’t really believe that statement due to their tense interactions. However, when Roman died, “Juan’s grief was unashamed, maddening, like that of a woman for her lover… [or] a young mother at the death of her first child.” (232). Andrea had clearly witnessed many unpleasant situations in the house, however, she believed Juan’s cries for his brother was the worst situation. On the outside, it seemed as if Juan disliked Roman. However, in the end, it turns out he loved him the most (besides their mother).

A question I have for my classmates is do you agree with the other aunts that the grandmother’s unconditional love, spoiling Juan and Roman as much as she could, caused Roman’s ending in a way?

Spam prevention powered by Akismet